4.8 Article

Red wine polyphenols enhance endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression and subsequent nitric oxide release from endothelial cells

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 106, 期 13, 页码 1614-1617

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000034445.31543.43

关键词

cardiovascular diseases; nitric oxide synthase; nutrition; pharmacology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Population-based studies suggest a reduced incidence of morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease caused by moderate and regular consumption of red wine. Enclothelial nitric oxide (NO) is a pivotal vasoprotective molecule. This study examines the influence of red wine polyphenols on the regulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) expression and subsequent NO synthesis, focusing on the putative long-lasting antiatherosclerotic effects of red wine. Methods and Results-Treatment (20 hours) of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) and of the HUVEC-derived cell line EA.hy926 with a alcohol-free red wine polyphenol extract (RWPE) led to a concentration-dependent (100 to 600 mug/mL), significant increase in NO release (up to 3.0-fold/HUVEC and 2.0-fold/EA.hy926) as shown by use of the fluorescent probe DAF-2. This effect was corroborated by the [C-14]L-arginine/L-citrulline conversion assay in intact EA.hy926 cells. RWPE (20 hours, 100 to 600 mug/mL) also significantly increased eNOS protein levels up to 2.1-fold. Furthermore, we found an increased human eNOS proinotor activity (up to 2-fold) in response to red wine polyphenols (18 hours, 100 to 600 as demonstrated by a luciferase reporter gene assay. Conclusion-We provide conclusive data showing for the first time that a RWPE increases eNOS expression and subsequent endothelial NO release. Increased active eNOS levels may antagonize the development of endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, a hypothesis that supports the view that red wine indeed may have long-term protective cardiovascular properties mediated by its polyphenols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据